rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
Fri Sep 26 15:24:14 PDT 2008
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 07:42:05PM -0400, Turner, Sean P. wrote:
> I actually do want to know if there is a process to allow us to update the
> notes prior to it being verified ;) If only the SSP can make the changes
> that seems like maybe one more thing to put on our overworked ADs.
The errata system was designed to capture the final state of the
errata after proper discussion between the relevant parties. We
expect the relevant parties to discuss the validity of a report, and
then change its status accordingly, and add any notes that summarize
the discussion/rationale for this status decision.
To make a comment on an existing errata, please send mail to
rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org and we will forward your message to the
relevant parties. If you were on the initial "Errata Reported" email
that went out when the errata was submitted, then you can simply use
"Reply All" to comment. The verifiers have the ability to edit the
content of the errata with or without changing its status.
Currently, there is no publicly visible way via the errata system to
post a comment or edit the existing errata report, except via the
relevant SSP or the RFC Editor.
As we receive feedback on the errata system/process, we are working to
address new issues. Thank you for your feedback! We will consider
including a new feature for commenting once the system has been
updated to meet the requirements of the IESG's verification process.
> My biggest problem with the whole errata process is the lack of visibility.
> There's no link from the RFC index or the WG pages to verified errata. I
> think there ought to be. In fact I think the RFC boiler plate ought to be
> modified to say there might be errata go look here in the http location.
This is actually one of the ideas that we have included in Appendix A
> Somebody asked me about a verified technical errata. I couldn't find the
> definition of what a verified technical errata, but more importantly what it
> means to be verified (i.e., does it become part of the base standard).
Good point. We note that the definition of "Verified" appears when
viewing the entire list of errata
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_list.php), but it does not readily
appear elsewhere. We will correct this.
> If there's a bits on the wire change because of the errata I think that it
> ought to force an update to the RFC. There are probably only a few but I
> found at least one (#302) that would change bits on the wire.
Whether a new RFC is required is at the discretion of the stream that
originated the document. This may be a point you bring to the
attention of the IESG.
Please let us know if you have any additional comments!
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman at vpnc.org]
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:40 PM
> >To: Turner, Sean P.; rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> >Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-rfc-errata-process-02.txt
> >At 6:13 PM -0400 9/24/08, Turner, Sean P. wrote:
> >>Is there a process to change the reported errata or is the errata
> >>rejected and a new errata submitted? Say the change or the
> >notes needs
> >>to be tweaked.
> >Sean is being a bit glib here. The erratum in question has
> >been validated. However, that erratum changes bits-on-the-wire
> >in the standards-track RFC. Someone reading the RFC would
> >reject messages created following the erratum. Thus, the
> >questions above have some real-world interop issues.
> >--Paul Hoffman, Director
> >--VPN Consortium
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest